For c/delay in filing SLP and office report) WITH S.L.P.(C)...CC No. 3154/2017 for c/delay in filing SLP and Office Report) S.L.P.(C)...CC No. 2195/2017 for c/delay in filing SLP and Office Report) S.L.P.(C)...CC No. 3337/2017 for c/delay in filing SLP and Office Report) Date : 13/02/2017 These petitions were called on for hearing today.
For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following ORDER Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by SUKHBIR PAUL KAUR Date: 2017.02.16 15:56:10 IST Reason: It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that three issues were raised by the Income Tax Department before the High Court, but the High Court has, by impugned judgment, -2- decided only one of those issues, which pertains to the privilege fees.
Insofar as decision on this issue is concerned, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the High Court.
So far as the contention regarding non decision of the other two issues is concerned, it will always be open to the petitioner to approach the High Court.

Judgment

ITEM NO.44+60 COURT NO.8 SECTION IIIA SUPREME COURT OF INDIARECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)......CC No(s). 3089/2017 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 26/05/2016 in DBITA No. 95/2011 passed by High Court Of Rajasthan At Jaipur) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JAIPUR-II Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S. RAJASTHAN STATE GANGANAGAR SUGAR MILLS LTD. Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report) WITH S.L.P.(C)...CC No. 3154/2017 (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and Office Report) S.L.P.(C)...CC No. 2195/2017 (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and Office Report) S.L.P.(C)...CC No. 3337/2017 (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and Office Report) Date : 13/02/2017 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL For Petitioner(s) Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Adv Mr. S.A. Haseeb, Adv. For Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel Court made following ORDER Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by SUKHBIR PAUL KAUR Date: 2017.02.16 15:56:10 IST Reason: It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner that three issues were raised by Income Tax Department before High Court, but High Court has, by impugned judgment, -2- decided only one of those issues, which pertains to privilege fees. Insofar as decision on this issue is concerned, we do not find any infirmity in order of High Court. So far as contention regarding non decision of other two issues is concerned, it will always be open to petitioner to approach High Court. Delay condoned. special leave petitions are dismissed. [MALA KUMARI SHARMA] [SUKHBIR PAUL KAUR] COURT MASTER A.R.-CUM-P.S. Commissioner of Income-tax, Jaipur-II v. M/s. Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd